Reporter: Do you take any credit for making Washington more divided? Obama: In a nutshell? …No.

posted at 12:41 pm on October 16, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

He doesn’t exactly say “no,” not in so many words, but nowhere between the “I have consistently sought compromise” and the “what we haven’t seen is a willingness on the other side to engage in the basic compromises that are required for governance” are we treated to so much as a “I am the president of the United States, and this is my job” or some sort of variant. The reporter does call him out for originally campaigning so very confidently on his great uniting/healing mad bipartisanship skills, but it’s barely more than yet another opportunity for the president to deflect any kind of culpability onto the continual and fully spiteful Republican obstruction before moving right along. Perhaps someday, we’ll be able to look back on his particular brand of ceaseless politicizing and blame-shifting and laugh while scoffing, “Classic Obama!” …Someday. Via RCP:

DIANA WILLIAMS, WABC-TV: You were the one many years ago, when you were running for this office who said, you know, ‘I’m going to create a bipartisan atmosphere in Washington.’ Yet, Washington is more split than ever before. This country is more divided than ever before. Why have you not been able to create a bipartisan atmosphere here and do you take any of the blame on yourself for that?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that if you look at my track record over the last four years, I have consistently sought compromise. Sometimes, to the point that Democrats have been mad at me, but I didn’t care because I did what I thought was best for the country… The problem that we have right now is that on the other side, just a faction of the Republican party — it doesn’t represent all Republicans — that have decided to take a very extreme position and to use very extreme tactics in order to get stuff done. And the more moderate, reasonable members of the Republican party up in Congress often times have difficulty dealing with that faction. And, what we’ve seen as a result is the kind of mess that we’re seeing today. So, the upshot is this: if you look at both my policies as well as the approach that I’ve taken in governing, there is a lot of overlap between what I’m proposing and what Republicans have proposed in the past. I take their ideas all the time. What we haven’t seen is a willingness on the other side to engage in the basic compromises that are required for governance.

He doesn’t exactly say “no,” not in so many words, but nowhere between the “I have consistently sought compromise” and the “what we haven’t seen is a willingness on the other side to engage in the basic compromises that are required for governance

Why would he have to compromise when there are always surrender monkeys around telling us that we need to cede ground now in the name of pragmatism or something. Cave now in order to fight another day.

And the media covers for him, and the gop leadership asks him if he’d like another trillion dollar stimulus, raise the debt ceiling to 170 gazillion billion trillion, and burn Ted Cruz and Mike Lee on the steps of the Capitol.

“I’ve bended over backwards to work with Republicans.” No. He bended over backwards to shut out Repubs. Remember he said “elections have consequences” as he deliberately shut out any Republican input into the trillion $ stimulus boondoggle. And then passed the nation dividing trillion+ $ “Affordable” Care Act without a single Republican vote from congress.

Does Diana Williams call out the President’s self-serving and devoid from reality answer?

As much as these examples tell us so much about the President’s character – they also speak volumes about the intellectual and ethical bankruptcy of the media – and their willingness to ignore the fact that, in reality, the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.

I’m never going to be able to look back at this guy and laugh. His deliberate damage to the nation’s fabric has been too far reaching. His policies have brought too much harm to our system of government and too much misery to the lives of many people.

Transferring to a university in the third year generally requires a solid academic record, especially to the Ivy League. So how does a guy who admits he was a substandard student at Occidental get into Columbia in the first place? Why don’t any classmates remember him? How does a guy get to be President of Harvard Law Review and never in his career as student, “con-law lecturer,” or attorney ever publish a single scholarly article?

Affirmative Action is a terrible way to pick a President. But at least Obama obviously feeeeeeeeeeeels good about himself, huh?

DIANA WILLIAMS, WABC-TV: You were the one many years ago, when you were running for this office who said, you know, ‘I’m going to create a bipartisan atmosphere in Washington.’ Yet, Washington is more split than ever before. This country is more divided than ever before. Why have you not been able to create a bipartisan atmosphere here and do you take any of the blame on yourself for that?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that if you look at my track record over the last four years, I have consistently sought compromise. Sometimes, to the point that Democrats have been mad at me, but I didn’t care because I did what I thought was best for the country… The problem that we have right now is that on the other side, just a faction of the Republican party — it doesn’t represent all Republicans — that have decided to take a very extreme position and to use very extreme tactics in order to get stuff done. And the more moderate, reasonable members of the Republican party up in Congress often times have difficulty dealing with that faction. And, what we’ve seen as a result is the kind of mess that we’re seeing today. So, the upshot is this: if you look at both my policies as well as the approach that I’ve taken in governing, there is a lot of overlap between what I’m proposing and what Republicans have proposed in the past. I take their ideas all the time. What we haven’t seen is a willingness on the other side to engage in the basic compromises that are required for governance. No, absolutely not, and how DARE you ask me such an impertinent question. Don’t you know I am the Lightworker, the Transformer, the Unicorn Prince who Made the Seas Stop Rising, ‘sort of God’?? I plan to take up your insolence with your editors, who I am quite sure will not want ME on their bad side. Kiss your career goodbye, madame.

His supporters will be writing the history books. Don’t bet on the judgement being harsh.

Just look at the list of “GREAT” presidents.

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt are consistently ranked at the top of the lists. Often ranked just below those Presidents are Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt. The remaining places in the top ten are often rounded out by Harry S. Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, James K. Polk, and Andrew Jackson.

One person on the list that would be considered a Constitutional limited government Conservative.

A fundamental leadership skill is giving credit to others when you could take it for yourself, and taking blame from others when things aren’t really your fault. Because you’re the leader, you see. You aren’t trying to convince everyone else how great you are, you’re already the leader. It’s a pretty simple thing to get your mind around.

That Obama is a finger-pointing liar when he screws up (the Benghazi video story, the “I didn’t draw a red line in the sand about chemical weapons, Congress [or the world] did” nonsense, etc.) and takes credit for accomplishments he had very little to do with it (unemployment rate going down not because people are finding jobs but because they quit looking for work, the successful Bin Laden raid, etc.) speaks volumes about his character (or lack thereof).

After praising Cruz as a student, as he had done earlier this year, Dershowitz leveled some harsh claims against him.

“He has to qualify among the brightest of the students,” Dershowitz said, who added that Cruz is deeply principled.

But when it came to the shutdown and debt-ceiling fight, Dershowitz made his case.

“I think it raises very serious constitutional questions of the kind that Ted Cruz should be interested in. Could you imagine Hamilton and Madison sitting around and drafting the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. They’re talking about how the government has to pay its debts, how it has to secure the credit of the United States, how the House of Representatives to originate bills on revenue. Nobody in a million years would have contemplated the power of Congress to shut down the government, to create doubts about our creditworthiness WHO HAS NOT PASSED A BUDGET IN 5 YEARS, Mr. Dershowitz????,” he said.

“I think you can make a very strong argument that what Ted Cruz is doing is deeply unconstitutional. Whether a court would accept that or say it’s a political question is another issue, but Cruz is a principled man. He ought to look at the Constitution and look into his heart and ask himself, ‘What would Alexander Hamilton have done,’” Dershowitz said.

The comments quickly found their way to the Internet and got an equally quick response from author and radio show host Mark Levin.

“Dershowitz is dead wrong. We don’t have to imagine anything,” he told the Newsbusters website. “Congress and only Congress can authorize borrowing under Article I. The president must first pay interest on the debt under the 14th Amendment. The federal government collects 10 times as much revenue each month as it needs to cover those payments. As long as the president complies with the Constitution there can be no default. This is basic stuff. Even a Harvard law professor like Dershowitz should comprehend it.”

For the first time in American history, a president confessed to deliberately hurting his country to score points against his enemies.

From NBC/WSJ poll:

And 46 percent of respondents say the president, during this budget standoff, has been a strong leader and is standing up for what he believes in, versus 51 percent who believe he’s putting his own political agenda ahead of what’s good for the country.

In a clear attempt to woo largely establishment conservative commentators who have loudly opposed the GOP’s current government shutdown strategy, President Obama held an off-the-record meeting with the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer, the Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot, National Review’s Washington editor Robert Costa, syndicated columnist and former CNN co-host Kathleen Parker, and Byron York of the Washington Examiner.

This is hardly the first time Obama has held select, politically-motivated off-the-record sessions. In May, the White House held a “deep background” session with select reporters as the Benghazi scandal reared its head. In September, Obama held an off-the-record meeting with reporters and columnists on his Syria strategy. Obama’s cozy relationship with select members of the press has created abiding unhappiness among many members of the press corps, who feel that the president has created a stratified system with favored and unfavored journalists.

NPD like no one has ever seen before. Clinical psychologists could write volumes on this one for years.

D-fusit on October 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM

exactly. its just the NPD. not a surprise. once he is out of office and telling truth isnt racist i am pretty sure someone from the mental health profession will lay it all out. its pretty cut and dry. not a surprise anymore.

Remember he said “elections have consequences” as he deliberately shut out any Republican input into the trillion $ stimulus boondoggle. And then passed the nation dividing trillion+ $ “Affordable” Care Act without a single Republican vote from congress.

anotherJoe on October 16, 2013 at 12:58 PM

That’s ridiculous! The next thing you’d have us believe is that our ‘Great Unifier’ once advised his party’s voters to “punish your enemies…’

If we had a media worth its salt this guy would be toast a dozen times over. Instead they sit their like cows and nod in approval every time he tells another lie.

If we had a media worth its salt this guy would be toast a dozen times over. Instead they sit their like cows and nod in approval every time he tells another lie.

CaptFlood on October 16, 2013 at 2:07 PM

The majority are his ideological allies. They see this as an unjust and unfair system in an unjust and unfair country. To them, the US is a fundamentally broken country that needs to be fundamentally changed and the Constitution, for the most part, is an outdated and inflexible document.

These are the same ‘journalists’ who decided on that career path not in order to capture the first draft of history based on facts and report on those facts to the people – but to ‘influence and change the world’ as one AP editor told me.

They are products of academia – and suffer from the same inability of academia to believe what they see as opposed to only seeing what they believe.

They are products of academia – and suffer from the same inability of academia to believe what they see as opposed to only seeing what they believe.

Athos on October 16, 2013 at 2:17 PM

I believe Victor Davis Hanson coined the term ‘Medieval Liberals’ to exactly describe what you’ve pointed out above. Classical Liberals would incorporate facts and observations into their calculus. This modern variant holds onto their beliefs in spite of all they see, hear, and experience.

The guy is a certified wack job. If it was not for AA as well everybody having their panties in a wad over being called a racist, this guy would be on a gang in Chicago shooting little kids. He makes mesick

The guy is a certified wack job. If it was not for AA as well everybody having their panties in a wad over being called a racist, this guy would be on a gang in Chicago shooting little kids. He makes mesick

retiredeagle on October 16, 2013 at 3:20 PM

He would not have made it to Chicago, he would be selling furniture in his grandfather’s furniture store in Hawaii.

How come no one ever asks Obama to give 3 specific examples of instances where he has bent over backwards to compromise? (OK that’s a rhetorical question) You know, like when Katie Couric asked Palin which Supreme Court decisions she’d like overthrown, because that really falls within the purview of the Vice President./

By ‘compromise’, the REB means ‘accepting not quite all of what I want’. In no way does it ever mean accepting any part of anything that the other party wants.

slickwillie2001 on October 16, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Let me fix this…

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that if you look at my track record over the last four years, I have consistently sought compromise, while not compromising at all.

Now it’s more accurate.

sadatoni on October 16, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Yep, anyone can claim they are seeking something and just not finding it, when they are not looking for it at all.

You know he’s lying; I know he’s lying (or else he really believes that “to compromise” means “to get all of my demands without you getting anything”); but to the LIV viewers and the Left / Dem partisans, everything he says sounds so very reasonable and true, because they never heard what he said before, or don’t remember it, or agree with it.

Then the Right / GOP sound like they are the ones lying about the President, after he has tried so hard to make them happy.